The law gives the buyer the right to issue a certificate of ownership of the acquired property.
Depositing a contract of sale with the land registry protects the rights of the buyer, who, as long as he fulfills his obligations, may claim specific performance of the contract and any other remedies to which they are entitled against the obligated seller.
According to the Special Enforcement Law, the buyer has the right to demand both specific performance of the contract in order to transfer the property to his name, and the seller must fulfill his obligations, take all necessary measures to issue a separate document of ownership . and bear the associated costs. If the contract is concluded for the purchase of an apartment or a house under construction and has defects, the buyer has the right to demand compensation for the cost of repairs and any other expenses incurred.
In addition, if the contract provides for payment of the balance of the purchase price upon handover, the court will order the buyer to pay for it. An order for a specific execution is issued subject to the relevant provisions of the law.
If the obligated seller refuses or defaults, the court has the right to order its specific performance and instruct another person or the buyer to take all necessary measures to issue a document of title.
In a unanimous decision dated May 19, the Supreme Court found that the trial court in the present case was wrong in not issuing an order for specific execution and not issuing a notarial deed. He referred to section 7(1) of the law, which empowers the court to order the specific performance of an agreement under any necessary conditions. He indicated that the specific agreement complies with the preconditions of Article 6 of Law 81 (I)/2011 in order to be specifically implemented. There was no doubt that the contract of sale had been deposited with the land registry, and there was no question of the limitation period.
Based on the provisions of section 7(2), the Supreme Court held that the absence of a separate registration was not a bar to the issuance of an order.
The Court of First Instance ruled and ordered in favor of the buyer to surrender the house to him and authorized him to sign on behalf of the seller any necessary application or document for the completion of the house, as well as compensation. However, no specific execution of the sales contract and issuance of a title deed was ordered, given that there was no such requirement in the statement of claim and that there was no such assertion in the pleadings.
The Supreme Court ruled that this reasoning was incorrect because the statement of claim stated that the sales contract had been deposited with the land registry and that the buyer required the seller to perform it. The issue of specific performance may not have been properly discussed, however, there were several elements in the lawsuit that justified the possibility of granting this remedy. In any case, this possibility is allowed by the essential facts that constitute the buyer’s right of action.
The Supreme Court ruled that it should not order a retrial by the court of first instance and ruled on the specific performance of the sales contract. He appointed the buyer as the person who was fit to take all necessary steps and steps to obtain the necessary certificates, permits or approvals to issue a separate certificate of title to the house and at the same time transfer the house to pay the amount due . to the parent by agreement and decision of the court of first instance.
George Coucunis is a lawyer practicing in Larnaca and founder of George Coucounis LLC, Advocates & Legal Consultants